Boycott Dick's Sporting Goods

[JWP58]

Or if you didnt want to bake a cake or make tshirts for.....people under 21. Im guessing thats ok in the grand scheme of things. Now if they were under 21 and gay it would be Armageddon. You see in some eyes (liberal's) people are not equal, silly.

 

[Kevin Dill]

I'm in no way defending Dick's or other stores with the 'under 21-no gun' policy. I'm just wondering how society will react to it, and what the judicial decisions might be.

From the public (at large) viewpoint, this might be comparable to a bar owner refusing to sell spirits to anyone below the age of 21, even if the state permits it. Some people will think it's a good, responsible policy. Some will think it violates rights, or maybe the law.

And finally, isn't there something on the books which allows a firearms seller to refuse to sell to anyone they deem as dangerous, risky, or otherwise a perceived serious risk? Can they use discretion and could the '21' rule fall under this? Again...just thinking out loud and putting it up for discussion here.

 

[elkduds]

Let's boycott Utah (I already am). They are legislatively stealing our birthright, public lands. That government effort is a greater risk to hunting than a retail store deciding its own policy that violates no law. The knee jerking on behalf of the NRA here is telling, and unwarranted.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Let's boycott Utah (I already am). They are legislatively stealing our birthright, public lands. That government effort is a greater risk to hunting than a retail store deciding its own policy that violates no law. The knee jerking on behalf of the NRA here is telling, and unwarranted.

Thing is, there is nothing, anywhere by anyone commanding that you or I have a right to public lands. Boycott all you want but if others feel an actual right is in danger or being infringed that (to me) is far more concerning than a privileged being impeded upon. I love our public lands, use them extensively every year but I'm not so naive to think they are in fact a right. Public lands, and specifically hunting on public lands is a privilege, firearm ownership is a right.

 

[KJH]

I just saw they will also be restricting all gun sales to those over 21. Does anyone know the legality of this?

A Federal Firearms Licensee can refuse to sell a firearm to anyone for any reason if they belive its in the interest of safety or an illegal situation will arise. I believe its completely legal... BS, but legal.

 

[5MilesBack]

I just read the Ohio regs and a business can decide whether to allow guns on/in their premises. A bar, hospital, clothing store...any business can implement a no-guns-here policy as long as it's clearly posted. That includes those with CCP.

The point is that it's supposedly OK for a business to deny entry to the customer that is exercising their right to carry. So then why is it not OK for said business to deny entry when that customer is exercising their right to being gay? You can carry all you want.......just not in my business. Well, you can be gay all you want.......just not in my business.

 

[KJH]

And finally, isn't there something on the books which allows a firearms seller to refuse to sell to anyone they deem as dangerous, risky, or otherwise a perceived serious risk? Can they use discretion and could the '21' rule fall under this? Again...just thinking out loud and putting it up for discussion here.

You are correct.

I am a firearms dealer and this is absolutely the case and the BATF field agent has openly told me this very thing before. I would refuse to sell a firearm to anyone who I don't feel would use it correctly or is buying it for nefarious purposes, but being 20 years old isn't nefarious on its own.

 

[5MilesBack]

The knee jerking on behalf of the NRA here is telling, and unwarranted.

I don't think all this knee-jerking is on the behalf of or because of the NRA. The knee-jerking age 21 rule has nothing to do with the NRA, but yes....it is telling and unwarranted.

 

[Murdy]

I do not believe youth is a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

A Federal Firearms Licensee can refuse to sell a firearm to anyone for any reason if they belive its in the interest of safety or an illegal situation will arise. I believe its completely legal... BS, but legal.

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't aware that was a legal option they reserved.

 

[Cant hit em]

I do not believe youth is a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws.[/QUOTE

Are you still a youth at age 18


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[elkduds]

Thing is, there is nothing, anywhere by anyone commanding that you or I have a right to public lands. Boycott all you want but if others feel an actual right is in danger or being infringed that (to me) is far more concerning than a privileged being impeded upon. I love our public lands, use them extensively every year but I'm not so naive to think they are in fact a right. Public lands, and specifically hunting on public lands is a privilege, firearm ownership is a right.

Following your logic, public lands are more in peril than gun rights. I choose to work harder on the greater risk. Especially when a government entity (in our time, multiple entities) are threatening those lands. In a government by the people, we can have keep those lands if we are willing to fight those who would take them. 2A is an amendment, made @ a time when the republic was in peril and land was endlessly available. I believe there can and should be an Amendment that codifies the right of American citizens to own public lands, now that those lands are in peril.

 

[Murdy]

I do not believe youth is a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws.[/QUOTE

Are you still a youth at age 18


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I believe the protected class for age is people 40 and older, before than, they don't apply.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I believe there can and should be an Amendment that codifies the right of American citizens to own public lands

I'm not against this... but in the meantime there isn't one, and very few if any are actually bringing forth legislation to amend our constitution so that we are granted an American right to public lands. It seems as though politicians on both sides of the fence have bigger fish to fry than guaranteeing us a place to recreate every fall. Until then it remains a privilege....

 

[Kevin Dill]

The point is that it's supposedly OK for a business to deny entry to the customer that is exercising their right to carry. So then why is it not OK for said business to deny entry when that customer is exercising their right to being gay? You can carry all you want.......just not in my business. Well, you can be gay all you want.......just not in my business.

You need to ask that to our legislative and judicial branches of congress. If it was up to me, I would probably support the right of a business owner to not allow plenty of things inside their business. It's legal to drink a pop or walk your dog on the sidewalk, but it's within the rights of many state's laws for businesses to disallow pets and drinks inside their establishment. And before anyone says it, a service dog isn't considered a pet.

Anyway, I simply brought this up as a (perhaps poor) indicator that businesses do have the right to make some decisions about how they conduct their business. That can apply to guns and carrying on premises. Can it apply to a business making a discretionary policy against gun sales to people under 21 if they (the business) claim it is safety-driven (their judgment) versus age discrimination? I don't have the answer.

I should add that I bought my first .243 at age 15 with my own money and all I had to do was buy it and walk out. I had an arsenal of guns, ammo and reloading supplies by age 17. I managed to avoid trouble, but had a few close calls. By 21 I was in college and had lots of other things to pay attention to besides guns. So having a blanket 'no gun under 21' rule isn't the answer in my opinion. Conversely, there are a lot of completely nutty people of all ages who should not own guns period. The problem as we all know is identifying them and keeping up with them.

 

[5MilesBack]

I had an arsenal of guns, ammo and reloading supplies by age 17.

I had several guns in my dorm room in college as a freshman, and it wasn't a big deal......and that was in the 80's. I remember the RA just asking if I could possibly make sure they were cased when I carried them from the room to the vehicle, or vice versa.

Then I lived in a fraternity house for two years. I wasn't the only one that had guns there, there were several of us that had them in our rooms. I had a bow there as well. And even with all the drunken idiotic things that did happen there........none of those incidents involved guns.

Yep, times have changed in just the last 30 years. I guess these days everyone would have died in the dorm or the frat house. These days, guns are dangerous.

 

[Retterath]

I heard cabelas is sticking to your same gun sales, cause they are not Dicks!!!!

 

[maninthemaze]

You mean like a private business managing their business as they think best? I believe the courts already ruled on that one, and ruled they don't have the right to manage their business how they want.

I'm pretty sure you are correct. That got settled when the Christian owned bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The courts decided that even a privately held business can't discriminate based on age, race, sex, religion or sexual preferences.

Besides, I heard that since they quit selling AR's, Hillary likes Dicks.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin Dill]

I think the operative word to define will be discriminate. The Christian bakery definitely discriminated against the gay couple and did it for moral & religious reasons. Race discrimination needs no explanation as to its origins. If the No Gun Under 21 policy gets tested in court (it will) the stores like Dick's and others will be attempting to prove it's not about simple age discrimination for them. They'll be trying to show that any gun seller should be able to make legit discriminatory decisions based on their risk assessment of the proposed buyer. If they can show enough evidence that their decisions are based on public safety, I believe there's a decent chance the court could side with them...and especially so in the current political-social climate regarding mass shootings in schools.

Keep in mind also; these stores are doing this knowing it will cost them sales opportunities on guns. They also know there will be backlash from us gun owners. They'll use that as proof they are serious about minimizing gun-related violence and are willing to concede sales to make it happen. I don't know how it ends up, but I do know there are a lot of rural young men who grow up in hunting families and a firearm is almost a birthright to them. An across-the-board ban on selling to under-21s is too indiscriminate and punishing. There has to be a better way to assess the buyer and make a decision to sell or refuse. Some (un)common sense needs to happen.

 

[BrushyHillGuide]

I already wrote and called them to inform them I, and my family, will no longer be purchasing any products from them or visiting their stores, as a direct result of this policy move. Do they care? Nope. Made me feel better, though. Never even looked at a firearm or hunting stuff their - I bought some summer clothes, socks, cleats for the kids, footballs, bats, etc. The closest one is an hour away, in the big city but they have a good selection and decent prices. I can, and will, afford to shop elsewhere. Academy sports has much better shooting sports selection and all the same gear anyway. It’s just a little further. I occasionally buy a box of ammo there but restrict most of my shooting sports business to independent shops and not box stores.

Do they have the right to set this new policy? Of course! And I’ll defend they’re right to do so. Given the setup of the stores (what they carry and display/advertise prominently) it’s obvious that their core customer isn’t the hunting/fishing community - it’s soccer, golf, baseball, etc. Frankly, there are loads of anti-gun folks that enjoy the other sports that are Dick’s caters to. So, it’s no surprise to me that they made this decision and it’s probably a smart one for them financially. At the same time, it’s MY right to support the businesses of my choosing; and I choose those that don’t take up an anti-gun position. And I do think this policy change is anti-gun. So I won’t shop their stores. I’ll leave it to the snowflakes. Even if they changed their policy back, I won’t return. I have no need for a store who’s values bend whichever way the wind blows. Honestly, I’d be fine with seeing a reduction in box store gun sales and a return to the independent gun shops like the ones of yesteryear and that I use. You might pay a few bucks extra but it’s well worth it to buy from a place that really KNOWS firearms and their uses. No offense meant but their are a disproportionate number of completely UN-knowledgeable people working the gun counters (and archery counters) at most box stores. Stores where the guy behind the counter is a passionate shooter, and possibly hunter, are (imo) much better and will usually support a person throughout their journey from a beginning shooter to a advanced shooter; and, if they’re lucky, into reloading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk